Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 1

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Corey Lynne, Bruce Barker, and Michele Bennett

University of Colorado Denver

September 3, 2009

Authors’ Note

Corey Lynn, Bruce Barker, and Michele Bennett are UCD students in Brent Wilson’s Current

Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology – IT 6750 class, 2009 Fall Semester.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 2

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Definitions

The terms instructional technology, educational technology, instructional design, and instructional design and technology (IDT) all denote the same professional field. It may not be possible to agree on a single name for the field, but it is important for current and future professionals to understand the scope of the field in order to communicate, study and perform their roles effectively. This section will discuss and compare some of the prevalent definitions of these terms, including a brief history of the evolution of some of the names and their meanings. Before proceeding, it might help to look at typical dictionary definitions for a few of the main terms as a starting point; these are taken from the Oxford Concise American Dictionary (Oxford, 2006).

Education: “The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university.”; “The theory and practice of teaching.”

Instruction: “The teaching of (someone) how something should be done, operated, or assembled.”

Technology: “The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.”; “The machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge.”

Instructional Technology

One difficulty with using the terms Instructional Technology or Educational Technology is that their popular conception, for laypersons, is that of the actual technological media (e.g., computers, internet, video) and/or applications of those media (distance learning, tutorial programs, etc.); another is that the two terms are often used interchangeably – by people both within and outside the field.

It could be argued when the practice of using ‘technology’ in education originated – with the use of cave paintings to teach the young many thousands of years ago, with early uses of training manuals such as the Navy’s Blue Jackets’ Manual from the late 1800s (Jones, 1999), with the advent of slide shows and motion pictures used for training military personnel beginning early in the 20th century, etc. One of the earliest definitions for the field, from the National Academy of Visual Instruction in 1925 states:

“…. visual instruction involves the schoolroom use of motion pictures, lantern slides, and a ‘wealth of devices’ such as still pictures, wall maps, charts, and the actual objects,” (Reiser and Ely ,1997).

This definition almost entirely focused on the current technological media that could be used in teaching. A new field of study devoted to the use of technology in teaching originated, in large part, to assist the classroom teacher in employing technology in his/her delivery of instructional material; in the 50’s and 60’s, there was a big push for Junior College programs to train teachers how to use the latest media (Jones, 1999). The primary focus was essentially: “Here’s the latest technology, and here’s how to use it. Now go use it in your teaching”

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 3

By the mid-1900’s, theories of education and learning evolved to view education as more of a systematic process rather than as the end product of teaching. With this shift, the name of the field changed from visual to audiovisual instruction and then, by the 1960’s, to instructional technology. Along with these changes in the education field, the scope of the instructional technology field also advanced. In 1972, one of the primary professional organizations for this emerging field, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (aka. AECT) defined Instructional Technology as: “A field involved in the facilitation of human learning through the systematic identification, development, organization, and utilization of learning resources and through the management of these processes” (AECT, 1972.) AECT’s definition was a significant change from the 1925 definition and included a focus on the “facilitation of human learning” rather than on the narrow view of “using the technology.”

Educational Technology – A Current Definition

The term educational technology has recently become more prevalent, due in part to the AECT’s use of term in their 2008 definition of the field. The broader meaning of this phrase encompasses not just instructional design and practice but also the learning theories and other processes that guide and drive instruction. The 2008 AECT definition states:

“Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Molenda and Robinson, 2008)

Along with the definition, Molenda and Robinson included a great deal of detail about the meaning of the different parts of their definition. The following is a synopsis of the definition:

Study - The research into new educational technologies, as well as research, influenced by learning theory and other related fields. The term implies a cyclical process of inquiry, research, design, practice and reflection that leads to continued improvements in educational practices.

Ethical practice - The traditional focus of using media ethically and respecting intellectual property, and also a focus on the needs, inclusion, safety and empowering of learners and educational professionals.

Facilitating - A shift of views from the traditional view (a teacher’s instruction causes a student’s learning) to the constructivist view (the learner’s active role drives his/her own learning and construction knowledge rather than a passive recipient of information). This shift has resulted in a more facilitative role for technology. The term learning has also evolved greatly over time. Today there is an understanding that mere memorizing is often a wasted effort and ‘deep learning’ is essential for a person to understand a concept and to apply his/her knowledge to a variety of problem solving situations.

Improving performance - Technological products should lead predictably and efficiently to the attainment of specific learning goals – new capabilities that the learner can use and apply. In addition, the educational technology should also help educators reach their goals more efficiently and effectively.

Creating, using and managing - The processes of instructional design. The creation of instructional materials or “learning systems” involves a systematic sequence of steps to analyze

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 4

the problem/goal, determine learner characteristics, specify what capabilities must be learned, and then develop the lessons, resources and/or systems to meet those goals and outcomes. Assessments should be made throughout the process and during use of the final product to analyze the effectiveness and identify ways to improve the instruction. ‘ADDIE’ (Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) is a commonly-used template for this process. As the collection of educational technologies has grown and become more and more complicated, so has the responsibility of managing the technology, which entails procuring, installing, monitoring and maintaining the various hardware and software components.

Appropriate technological processes and resources - Choosing which media and applications, based on sound scientific knowledge (as in Oxford’s definition above), would best implement a particular learning objective. This also refers to issues of cost/benefit, safety, the inclusion of diversity, and avoidance of stereotypes. The term “processes” in the definition highlights the need for a systems approach to instructional and technology development, viewed by many as central to the field.

Other Names for the Field

The publishing of AECT’s most recent definition of the field certainly does not preclude current researchers and practitioners from developing their own names and definitions for the field. An additional name worth mentioning is Instructional Design and Technology (IDT). This phrase proposed by Robert A. Reiser and employed by the professional organization: Professors of Instructional Design and Technology, attempts to clarify the dual focus of the field – the process of designing the instruction and the technology employed with the instruction. It also implies the precedence of the two parts (analyzing the problem and developing a solution before deciding on the technologies to use). Reiser’s IDT definition is very similar to the AECT definition by its mention of five procedural categories: design, development, implementation, management and evaluation. IDT adds a sixth activity – analysis of learning and performance problems – at the beginning of the process. IDT also explicitly mentions the importance of research and theory throughout the process. In addition, IDT refers to performance technology, which addresses non-instructional practices to increase performance in the workplace (Reiser, 2001).

There is no one universal, definitive name and definition for this field. The choice of a name can depend on the audience. The word ‘technology’ in the name usually means simply the hardware and software used in teaching to a layperson. For many, the use of ‘education’ in the name connotes K-12 education, so it may not be preferred by those involved in adult and higher education, or in professional training. The use of ‘instruction’, in addition to its narrow focus, can also have the negative connotation of the old, non-constructivist view of a teacher imparting their knowledge to students in a very prescribed way (as seen by “The teaching of someone …” in the Oxford dictionary); this negative connotation for the term is especially prevalent in many foreign countries. Maybe a better name for the field, without as much baggage, would be “Learning Technology,” which is using by some organizations, including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) Computing Society – the world’s leading organization of computing professionals. Whatever the terminology, more important is that

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 5

professionals in the instructional technology field are knowledgeable about the state of the ‘art’, and are adaptable to the continual changes in technology and education. History of the Field

Through a closer examination of the key events in the history of educational technology, a better understanding of interesting trends and developments the field encountered over the years can be achieved. This better understanding of ‘what came before’ can help inform practitioners in the field of concerns that may lie ahead, since history and educational technology are alike – at the very least – in their gravitation to systematic processes that are built upon previous ones.

After Cave Paintings – The Oral Traditions (500 BC – 300 BC)

The self-defined field of educational technology may not have existed before the 20th century, but trendsetters towards its objectives did. From the Confucians to the Sophists, from Socrates to Aristotle, early practitioners of educational technology knew that to teach effectively, instruction had to be systematically designed while keeping learner characteristics in mind. Confucians thought of learning as a deeply individual activity; they recognized different instructional approaches were needed for different people, and they individualized instruction through discussion. The Sophists, too, appreciated individual differences, while championing the use of rhetoric, applied analysis, and higher education. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle – though treading different philosophical ground – used the Socratic method as an instructional model, individualizing education through questioning. Clearly, effective systems and strategies for instruction and learning are not predicated on having state-of-the-art technologies; many of the same instructional values and models guiding instruction in 500 BC are present today. This trend of keeping past effective systems while developing new ones is an ongoing process.

From Philosophy to Science – Learn by Doing (13th- 19th Centuries)

New developments in scientific inquiry and experimentation as related to education characterized the period between the 13th and 19th centuries. The Scholastic method of instruction – a method emphasizing syllogisms – was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and employed in European universities everywhere. It laid the groundwork for scientific, psychological, and evaluative developments in educational technology. Comenius published a piece called Orbis Pictus in the 17th Century, a children’s instructional book with 150 pictures connected with abstract word symbols because he believed language should be taught in stages paralleling the stages of human development and that learning occurred through sensory exposure. Pestalozzi and Lancaster of the 18th century also employed ‘learn-by-doing’ means of instruction. Pestalozzi focused learners on the study of objects through senses rather than the study of words, and organized instruction based on the natural laws of human development. He also demanded teachers be competent and pursue scientific discovery of better teaching methods. Lancaster developed a monitorial system of teaching, using brighter, more proficient students to teach other children (under the direction of an adult); his philosophy was ‘Qui docet, dicet,’ or, ‘He who teaches, learns.’ Lancaster made strides in the

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 6

areas of learner motivation, teacher competence, and quality instructional media. By the end of the 19th century under such educational technology practitioners like Johanna Herbart and Friederich Froebel, the object-sensory push of Comenius and Pestalozzi were taken to new intellectual heights by incorporating motor expression, deconstruction, creativity, association, and testing of the system. These developments would lead from an experimental-inquiry-based educational technology to a more objective-based audiovisual educational design.

A Modern Marriage – Audiovisual Media Meets Behavioral/Cognitive Psychology (20th Century)

The 20th century is really where the modern concept of educational technology really begins to coalesce at a rapid rate with all its recognizable components under the AECT’s 2008 definition of the field.

1920s – 1940s – The increasing accessibility and quality of sound recording, radio, and film opened up interesting possibilities and spurned great study and analysis about how the effectiveness of media materials in instruction is related to their realism (illustrated by Edgar Dale’s “Cone of Experience” educational technology model). The United States invested in 457 instructional training films and 55,000 film projectors toward military and industrial objectives in the World War II effort and was said to be so victorious in the war because of its “quick and complete mastery of film education.” (Reiser, 1987)

1950s – 1960s – The U.S. government poured funds into curriculum development, media research, and University-based development and research. In the world of psychology, well-known Skinner, Piaget, and Bloom developed systems and taxonomies for achieving behavioral and cognitive objectives through conditioning, programming, and/or instruction. Television as a vehicle for instruction and training gained – and then lost – viability when poorly produced programming and an inability to appropriately choose technological applications and resources kept it from reaching its true instructional potential in practice. (Reiser, 1987)

1970s – 1980s – The educational technology field carved out a name for itself as the Department of Audiovisual Instruction became the AECT as it is known today, with graduate programs and hiring opportunities for practitioners in the field gaining a more widespread presence. The advent and use of microcomputers (e.g. Macintosh Apple II) changed the learning landscape of schools everywhere with the Center of Social Organization of Schools reporting that computers were being used for instruction in over 40% of elementary schools and 75% of secondary schools by 1983. This came on the heels of a growing interest in applying cognitive psychology principles in education for being able to differentiate and adapt instruction to the needs of individual learners; the interactivity and programmability of computers presented potential for these objectives.

1990s – 2000s – Unfortunately, though technology in education was viewed as a major vehicle for educational reform and the push to use computers toward individualized and interactive education had schools and businesses investing in an influx of technological hardware (the ratio of computers in public schools reached 6:1), only half of all teachers described having opportunities to develop skills or to be prepared to use the new

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 7

technology, according to The National Education Goals in 1995. On a positive swing, any constructivist educators that did find a way to take advantage of the technology could design more learner-centered educational experiences. As of 1995, enrollments in distance-learning-type courses via computers and the Internet doubled from the previous year with 78% of universities offering distance learning opportunities. The numbers reflecting this trend of individualized, adaptable, anywhere-education have surely increased by now, and studies are underway to determine whether true instruction and learning is occurring under these systems – or if there are yet better ways.

Summary

As technological trends, systematic approaches to instruction, and understanding of human development and learning have compounded over history, practitioners in the field of educational technology today can draw from any number of oral, hands-on, behavioral, programmed, media-infused, taxonomy-guided, evaluated-and-tested vehicles for instruction, depending on the most appropriate conditions for reaching a desired objective. History is stacked with numerous effective strategies and models that can be combined or parceled out to ethically facilitate learning and improve performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources: From the Socratic method to distance learning via the Internet. One concern that appears to be constant throughout history, however, is how to design and deliver instruction that best reaches unique learners on an individual level. Until a system or model is developed that can address that concern in all its permutations and possibilities, practitioners in the educational technology field can count on working on finding the next best thing.

Core Models

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school” (Albert Einstein). Technology-delivered instruction has evolved from the early use of visual illustrations: to mechanical devices: to plugging electronic telecommunication devices into classrooms: to connecting to the World Wide Web. Even though every step of the way has yielded to controversy, criticism, and the constraints due to monetary and time restrictions, the quest for delivering instruction through technology continues to move towards a more effective and defined future. However, the outcome and intended results of the objective greatly depends on the quality of the instruction. Specifically addressing the design process, the core models of instructional technology are based upon the early works of educational theorist such as Piaget, B.F. Skinner, and, most effectively utilized, B. Bloom’s Cognitive Process Taxonomy and his construction of projected learning outcomes.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 8

Piaget - The Balance of Power Piaget’s research led him to conclude that cognitive development was caused by 1) environmental factor and 2) heredity. Focusing on the environmental factors that aid in cognitive development, Piaget supported the thought that students learned more from peer interaction that from interactions with adults. Due to the obvious precept that the power between adults and children is too superior to overcome, students tend to connect easily with their cognitively-equal peers – thus engaging themselves in more opportunities for learning. Operant Conditioning According to Snowman & Biehler, the definition of B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theory of operant condition is as follows: “Voluntary response (is) strengthened or weakened by consequences that follow.” In the context of instruction, the application of behavioral reinforcement (positive, negative, or punishment) directly affects the outcome of a student’s ability to learn. He believed if operant conditioning methods were systematically applied to instruction then students would readily respond, absorb, and perform at a higher level. Snowman and Biehler state that Skinner’s systematic approach included: 1. Be clear about what is to be taught, 2. Teach first things first, 3. Allow students to learn at their own rate, and 4. Program the subject matter.

Skinner’s theory applied both the systematic design of instruction and acknowledged the student as an individual in the learning process. As Clark translates, “Individualized instruction in essence replaces the teacher with systematic or programmed materials.” Bloom’s Taxonomy According to the authors of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,

“…this work indicated that within the cognitive domain there were various types of learning outcomes, that objectives could be classified according to the type of learner behavior described therein, …tests should be designed to measure each of these types of outcomes” (Reiser, n.d.). The creation of any instruction should contain, within its systematical design, a clear understanding of the process that addresses the cognitive, age-appropriate, and schema driven use of specified objectives and outcomes.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 9

Bloom's Taxonomy: The Cognitive Process Dimension the Knowledge

The Knowledge Dimension

Remember Understand Apply Analyze Evaluate Create

Factual Knowledge

List Summarize Classify Order Rank Combine

Conceptual Knowledge

Describe Interpret Experiment Explain Assess Plan

Procedural Knowledge

Tabulate Predict Calculate Differentiate Conclude Compose

Meta-Cognitive Knowledge

Appropriate Use

Executer Construct Achieve Action Actualize

Figure 1: Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Lorin W. Andersin, David R. Krathwohl; et al. 2001 Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Encompassing Piaget, Skinner, and Bloom’s learning theories become the starting point for instructional designers to analyze and identify the gaps in learning, the audience’s needs, assessing existing knowledge, and defining objectives. Although computer-based technology may have had its roots in behavioral learning theory, current technology is more likely to reflect an informational-processing perspective (Snowman & Beilher). Early Systematic Design Models

“If one were to analyze current notions and fashionable catchwords, he would find 'systems' high on the list” - von Bertalanffy

The core of any instructional model is generally based upon a systematic structure of means and ends. During the 1940’s, when WWII training “spurned great study and analysis about how the effectiveness of media materials in instruction.” One of the leading instructional design theorists of that time, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, introduced the values of a systematic approach to instruction. Von Bertalanffy believed “A system is a complex of interacting elements … they are open to, and interact with their environments. In addition, they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence, thus they are in a continual evolution.” In his General System Theory-1950’s, von Bertalanffy visualized system theory as the “…general science of “wholeness…” concrete theories, many theorist furthered his studies to create a set of general instruction, learning, and training models.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 10

One of these models is the Instructional System Design (ISD) or sometimes referred to as the Systems Approach to Training (SAT). This initial model made the connection between the systems and the learning process. (Clark, 2004). The components of the IDS model are: Analysis, Design, Develop, and Implement, with Evaluation continually executed throughout the process.

Figure 2: Instructional System and Design Model (Clark, 2004)

The IDS term prompted the more generic “ADDIE” model of instructional design. “Thus, it seems as if the acronym "ADDIE" did not make its way into the popular literature until the mid 1990s, while the ISD model itself has been in use since 1975” (Clark, 2004). Examining most instructional design models juxtaposed to the ADDIE model will reveal the similarities between their basic systematic approaches.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 11

The acronym “ADDIE” stands for Analysis-Design-Development-Implement-Evaluation

Figure 3: ADDIE Model

According to Kevin Kruse, the ADDIE model offers clearly defined linear building blocks that enable the designer to focus on the specific tasks and create a product to defined standards (Kruse, 2000). This model lends itself to an adherence of strict time and budget constraints. However, this approach does not offer students the ability to interact with the designer or to take part in the development of the design; nor does it assess learning outcome. Variations of the ADDIE model of Instructional Design and continued research of student performance outcomes have lead to a differentiated variety of other technology-based models.

Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)

The Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS), published in 1970 by Mary and Peter Esseff, added a more constructivist approach to the systematic design and implementation of instructional technology. The IDLS Model moves beyond the ADDIE methodology to include assessments, not only of the design criteria, but also of the instruction, and student outcomes.

The Dick and Carey Model - 1978

Although there are several versions of ISD, with an almost unlimited number of possible design outcomes, the ADDIE model continues to be the model of choice, closely followed by the Dick and Carey model (Clark, 2006).

A

• Analysis

• In the Analysis phase, the designer analizes the desired objectives and outcomes of the instruction to be used. Gaps between instruction and learning are also examined.

D

• Design

• The Design phase is the brainstorming and prototyping phase of the model. Much like storyboarding for an advertisement, the design phase initiates the creative processes.

D

• Development

• After the Design phase has met the needs of the designers and the instructors, the final Development stage takes place. This is the actual creation of the product.

I

• Implement

• In the Implementation phase, the design is introduced to the teacher, trianing procedures are developed, and the materials are put into the hands of the student.

E

• Evaluation

• Although a formative evaluation is done through out the process, a summative evaluation taken after the implemantation offers essential feedback about how the instructional design is performing. This, however, does not include a student contenet assessment .

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 12

Figure 4: The System Approach Model

According to Dick and Carey, "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes" (Dick, W., & Carey, L.,1978).

Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model emphasizes the following aspects of instructional design:

Identify Instructional Goal(s) Conduct Instructional Analysis Analyze Learners and Contexts Write Performance Objectives Develop Assessment Instruments Develop Instructional Strategy Develop and Select Instructional Materials Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction Revise Instruction Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation (wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design)

This model demonstrates more inclusive perspectives from the designer, instructor and learner (and perhaps even the environmental conditions) working simultaneously on the final outcome of the design.

The Never Ending Conclusion

“The day is coming when the work done by correspondence will be greater in amount than that done in the classrooms of our academies and colleges.” - William Rainey Harper, distance-education pioneer and president of the University of Chicago - 1885

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 13

Dick and Carey’s methodology shifts the design paradigm beyond its generic ADDIE predecessor to a more holistic and comprehensive instructional program. Evaluating this method reveals reflections of the idealistic foresights of Piaget, Skinner, and Bloom. One might see the value of Piaget’s thought on the balance of power between adults and children and how it might apply to students who learn from computers as opposed to students who learn from adult teachers. Skinner’s views on operant conditioning could be referred to in the present as the immediate positive-feedback that media and computers offer learners. Into every instructional design format should be the workings of Bloom’s guiding Taxonomy of Cognitive Processes.

“640K ought to be enough for anybody” (Bill Gates).

Reflecting on The Systems Approach Model, one can trace the threads of research by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (the roots of systematic instructional), Esseff and Esseff, as well as many other influential theorists and designer. If the field researchers and designers continue in the pioneering footsteps of those who launched the concepts that guide instructional design, the possibilities for successful instructional technology design are infinite. The pieces are in place to advance instructional technologies into the 21st century. Obstacles such as money restrictions, opposing views, traditionalists and purists, and time will be the true determining factors in the future of instructional technologies. However, more attention needs to be placed on the transfer of relevant knowledge from the instructor to the student (recognizing culture, gender, language, and special needs), motivational factors, accessibility, equity (the digital divide), and training.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 14

References

Chadha, R., Dixon, M., Treat, A., Wang, Y. (2006). Major Developments in Instructional Technology: Prior to the 20th Century. Retrieved August, 2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/ITprior20.html Chadha, R., Dixon, M., Treat, A., Wang, Y. (2006). Major Developments in Instructional Technology: During the 20th Century. Retrieved August, 2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/ITduring20.html Clark, D. R. (2004), Instructional System Design Concept Map. Created November 7, 2004 Updated June 10, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/about/about.html AECT (1972). The Field of Educational Technology: A statement of definition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36-43.

Hug, W. E. (1978). Instructional Technology: Factors Influencing the Field. Occasional Paper No. 1, Syracuse University, National Institute of Education, Washington D.C.

Jones, B. W. (1999). A Differentiating Definition of Instructional Technology and Educational Technology. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/campus/7941/trmpprh.html

Molenda, M. (2003). Instructional Technology. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 341-343). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Molenda, M. and Robinson, R. (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates..

Oxford Concise American Dictionary. (2006). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Reiser, R.A. and Ely, D.P. (1997). The Field of Educational Technology as Reflected Through its Definitions. Educational Technology Research and Development.

McGovern, C. (2009). The Instructional Devlopment Timeline. Retrieved August, 2009, from http://my-ecoach.com/project.php?id=12152

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1976). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Publisher: George Braziller. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from …http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/about/about.html

Ashby, Ross W. (1964) Introduction to Cybernetics. Publisher: Routledge, Kegan & Paul. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/isd.html

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Page | 15

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman. Retreived August 31, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design

Wikipedia. Instructional Design. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design#Instructional_design_models

Kruse, Kevin. (2006). e-Learning Blueprints: The Design Phase. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from, http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm

Kruse, Kevin & Keil, Jason. (2000) Technology-Based Training: The Art and Science of Design, Development, and Delivery. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#table

Figure 1: Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives. Lorin W. Andersin, David R. Krathwohl; et al. 2001 Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Instructional System and Design Model (Clark, 2004) ................................................................ 10

Figure 3: ADDIE Model ............................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4: The System Approach Model...………………………………………………………………………………………. 12